Timber Merchant Wins Tax Case: Inadvertent E-Way Bill Error Does Not Constitute Intentional Tax Evasion

HC ruled in favor of petitioner, a timber merchant, finding no intentional tax evasion despite e-Way Bill address discrepancy. The court mandated refund of double-paid tax and penalty, determining that inadvertent administrative error does not justify repeated taxation. Directorate of Commercial Taxes ordered to process refund within four months, setting aside previous authority rejections.

---

---

Issues:
Refund of tax paid for the second time and penalty amount rejected by Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a timber merchant, transported goods with an e-Way Bill showing an incorrect dispatch address, leading to interception, penalty, and confiscation of goods. A subsequent corrected e-Way Bill was generated, but the petitioner was still required to pay tax and penalty again. The petitioner sought a refund, arguing against double taxation for the same goods. The respondents contended that the petitioner's responsibility for e-Way Bill accuracy made him liable for penalties. However, a previous court order highlighted the need for willful tax evasion for penalties to apply.

The Court found that the petitioner's initial tax payment was correct, and the interception was due to an inadvertent error in the e-Way Bill. Despite the subsequent corrected Bill, the goods' description remained the same. The Court referenced a previous case where intentional tax evasion was a prerequisite for penalties. It concluded that the petitioner did not intend to evade tax, and double taxation for the same goods was unjustified. Therefore, the Adjudicating and Appellate Authority's orders were set aside.

The Directorate of Commercial Taxes, Government of West Bengal, was directed to refund the tax paid for the second time and the penalty within four months. The Court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing the need for prompt refund processing.

---